Shadat Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3841 Jhar

                                  1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 1041 of 2019
                         ........

Shadat Hussain                         ....   ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....   ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
                          ............
For the Petitioner                     : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
                                         Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondents/State              : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I.
Amicus Curiae                          : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate.
                                         Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate.
                                         Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
                            ........
09/21.09.2022.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I and learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by learned counsels, Mrs. Ritu Kumar and Mr. Indrajit Sinha.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta has submitted, that petitioner - Shadat Hussain has preferred this writ petition on 25.02.2019 before this Hon'ble Court, impleading the State of Jharkhand as respondent no.1, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar as respondent no.2, the Additional Collector, Deoghar as respondent no.3, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar as respondent no.4 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar as respondent no.5, for a direction upon the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner, for the land situated at Mouza- Asahana No.606, Jamabandi No.12, Dag No.01 which has been settled in the name of the petitioner's father under 'Amalanama' dated 05.06.1938 by the learned court of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in Settlement Case no.38 of 1938-39 on 30.05.1940 and since then the cultivation is going on the aforesaid land after paying rent, but the same has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of extension of Airport without giving any prior notice,

which is illegal, malafide and unconstitutional on part of the State Authorities.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that petitioner has approached the authorities by showing the relevant documents and claiming over the said land, on the basis of decision passed in R.M. Case No.129 of 1961-62 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar on 26.05.1965 and thereafter, his name was entered in Register-II and accordingly on payment of rent, the rent receipts have also been issued to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner filed Rev. Misc. Case No.10 of 2016-17 before the court of the learned Additional Collector, Deoghar for recognition and declaration of the petitioner's land as Raiyati, having plot no.1, area 1.93 acres of Mouza-Asahana no.606, P.S.-Kunda, Sub-Division and District-Deoghar, but vide order dated 06.09.2016/07.09.2016, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the reason has not been assigned in the Register-II, while entering his name, which is based on an order passed by the competent Civil Court of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the petitioner has also filed an application before the learned Additional Collector, Deoghar on 23.03.2017 along with photocopy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, rent receipts and Amalnama for payment of compensation amount for his land situated at Mouza-Asahana, Jamabandi no.12, Dag no.01. Further, on 16.12.2017, an application was again filed before the Additional Collector, Deoghar, but no action has been taken and thereafter petitioner has no other efficacious alternative remedy than to approach this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has brought the order dated 30.05.1940 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in Settlement Case no.38 of 1938-39 with respect to Lakhu Mahato, Bhatoo Rout, Rupi Rout, Abdul Mia and Hemlal Rout against Receiver, Rohani Estate. This order was passed prior to the independence, wherein it has been mentioned by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar

on 30.05.1940 that :

"Parties present. The Receiver report shows that Hakim Mia is Jamabandi raiyat. I see no reason to set aside the settlement made by the Receiver. The Kanungoes' report shows that this is not Nika Petition rejected."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the rent receipt in the name of Hakim Mia for the year 2007-08 vide Rent Receipt No. AA1780153 and for the year 1986-87 to 1992-93 vide Rent Receipt No. 608592 have been brought on record as Annexure-2 Series to the writ petition. The copy of the order dated 26.05.1965 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar in Rev. Misc. Case No.129 of 1961-62 in the case of Hemlal Rout and others Vs. Balo Rout has also been brought on record, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

26.05.1965 Parties are present. In view of the compromise petition filed before the Gram Kutchery and certified copies which have been filed before this court. The compromise petition is accepted and the objection petition filed by some of the raiyat of the village is rejected. The case is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the order passed in Rev. Misc. Case No.10 of 2016-17, with respect to Gairmazrua land of raiyat for recognition of raiyati land in Mouza- Asahana No.606, Jamabandi No.12, Dag Nos. 01 and 23, total area 1.79 acres, type - parti kadim, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The orders dated 29.08.2016 and 06.09.2016 / 07.09.2016 passed in Rev. Misc. Case No.10 of 2016-17 may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

29.08.2016 vfHkys[k mifZLFkkfirA vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA izLrko esa vafdr jS;rh ekU;rk gsrq nkok fd;s x;s lacaf/kr jS;r dks lk{; nkf[ky djus gsrq uksfVl fuxZr djsaA vfHkys[k fnukad% 06-09-16 dks j[ksaA 06.09.2016 07.09.2016 vfHkys[k mifLFkkfirA uksfVl dk rkfeyk izkIr] tks vfHkys[kc) gSA nkos dh lquok;h gsrq vk;ksftr dSEi]

nso?kj gokbZ vìk vofLFkr dk;kZy; esa vkt fnukad% 06-09-2016 dks nkosnkj lgknr gqlSu mifLFkr gq,A vkosnd }kjk izLrqr lk{; dks ns[kk x;kA ekSatk&vlguk Fkkuk ua0&606] [kkrk u0&11] nkx u0&1 ,oa 23] jdok dze'k% 1-29 ,oa 0-50 ,dM+] dqy jdok&1-79 ,dM+] fdLe&ijrh dnhe Hkwfe ds fy, nkok fd;k x;k gSA mDr Hkwfe dk nkok ?kVoky }kjk izkIr iêk ,oa vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh ds vkj0,e0 okn ua0 [email protected]&62 ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gSA iath&II esa tekoanh dk;e gS] ysfdu iath& II ntZ gksus dk vk/kkj ntZ ugha gSA QyLo:i muds nkok dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vfHkys[k dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k dh izfr vuqeksnukFkZ mik;qDr] nso/kj dks HkstsaA The order dated 06.09.2016/07.09.2016 has been signed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar and the Additional Collector, Deoghar on 07.09.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the representations of the petitioner filed before the Additional Collector, Deoghar on 23.03.2017 and 16.12.2017 have been brought on record as Annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5, duly sworn by Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, son of Sri N. N. Singh, resident of

-Deoghar, posted as Circle Officer, Deoghar, wherein at paragraph-7, it has been submitted that:-

"That it is humbly stated and submitted that Amalnama of land in question has been ordered by S.D.O., Deoghar in the year, Case No.38 of 38-39 dated 30.05.1940 is fake and myth.

That the Amalnama dated 05.06.1938 has not been settled and issued by S.D.O., Deoghar. At that time the land in question of Mouja ASAHNA Thana No.606, J.B. No.12, Plot No.01 has been under the management of Court of Wards of Rohini estate receiver nominated by the estate appointed by the appropriate

Government."

(Emphasis Supplied) This counter-affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar seems to have exceeded the jurisdiction by a Revenue Officer of the rank of Circle Officer, who is commenting upon the order passed by his superior i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar on 05.06.1938. After perusing the aforesaid counter-affidavit, this Hon'ble Court was surprised to see the conduct of such officer and thus this Court has passed an order on 14.06.2022, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"Heard, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. K. Sahi, learned AC to SC (L&C)-I for the State.

Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner- Shadat Hussain, S/o Late Abdul Hakim has preferred the instant Writ Petition on 25.02.2019 for a direction upon the respondents to pay the compensation amount of the land of the petitioner situated at Mouza- Asahana No.606, Jamabandi No.12, Dag No.01 which had been settled in the name of his father under 'Amalnama' dated 05.06.1938, by the learned court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in Settlement Case No.38 of 1938-39 on 30.05.1940 and since then cultivation is going upon this land after paying rent, but the same has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of extension of Airport without giving any prior notice.

Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted, that it can only happen in the State of Jharkhand as the Circle Officer is not authorized and competent to file affidavit before the Court and he has not only filed counteraffidavit, but he can also say that action taken by his superior i.e. S.D.O. is fake and myth.

Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted, that once the order has been passed by the S.D.O. on 30.05.1940 in Settlement Case No.38 of 1938-39, no other officer can interfere with the same unless and until the same is appealled before the appellate authority by the State Government.

Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted, that it is surprising that the Circle Officers are issuing rent receipts for the year 2007-08 and thereafter such counter- affidavit is being filed on 08.01.2020 on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 by the Circle Officer, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, S/o Sri N. N. Singh, stating therein, that such settlement is fake and myth.

Mr. R. K. Sahi, learned AC to SC (L&C)-I for the State is granted time to explain that what do you mean by fake and myth, as stated by the Circle Officer.

Mr. R. K. Sahi, learned AC to SC (L&C)-I for the State has submitted that this counter-affidavit has not been filed under the guidance of his senior, learned SC (L&C)-I for the State rather it has been filed by the previous counsel for the State on 08.01.2020.

Considering the same, this Court expresses anguish over the affidavit filed by the Circle Officer stating the order passed by the S.D.O. who is admittedly superior to the Circle Officer that it is fake and myth.

However, it is made clear that this Court has directed learned counsel for the State on several occasions that the Government must notify that who is competent authority(s), who can file affidavit before the High Court on behalf of the State but till date Government has not issued any notification in this regard.

Accordingly, this Court directs the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, to file affidavit in-person after perusal of the record that how such order passed by the S.D.O. has been declared as fake and myth by the Circle Officer who is admittedly subordinate to the Sub Divisional Officer and if such affidavit is bad in law, the said officer must be prosecuted in accordance with law.

List this case on 19.07.2022 so as to assist this Court properly."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that order passed by this Court on 19.07.2022 may also be profitably quoted hereunder:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha has submitted, that the order dated 14.06.2022 has not been complied by the State.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, A.C. to Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I has submitted, that because of personal difficulty of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand as well as Shravani Mela is going on in the district of Deoghar, counter-affidavit has not been filed, as such, four weeks' time may be granted for filing counter-affidavit.

Let the matter appears on 17.08.2022 under the same heading.

It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on any ground.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that as per office note dated 12.08.2022, no counter affidavit in view of the order dated 19.07.2022 has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand on 17.08.2022, wherein at para-10 & 11, it has been submitted by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand that :-

"10. That it is stated that the documents annexed in the annexure-1 series to the writ petition, i.e. "Amalnama" dated 05.06.1938 and order dated 30.05.1940 passed in Settlement Case No.38 of 1938-39 seems to be such documents which prima facie do not appear to be genuine for the reasons mentioned below and as such, no reliance should be placed upon them for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner.

(i) It is not clear as to what is the actual name of the father of the petitioner, in as much as, whereas the settlement document dated 05.06.1938 disclosed the name of the petitioner's father as "Addual Hakim" the order dated 30.05.1940 (page-25 of the writ petition) is addressed to someone, by name "Hakim Mia".

(ii) It is nowhere clarified in the entire record that "Abdul Hakim" and "Hakim Mia" are same and one person.

(iii) The settlement dated 05.06.1938 is written in kaittahi script and the same does not bear the signature of its scriber.

(iv) There is no document on record to show that the petitioner's father was a Jamabandi Raiyat of mauza:- Asahana and as such settlement in his favour of the lands in question is totally null and

void.

(v) The said "Amalnama" dated 05.06.1938 bears the signature of one A prasad under the capacity of receiver of Rohani Estate. But there is no document to show that Rohani Estate had ever appointed him as a receiver in connection with land in question.

(vi) The order dated 30.05.1940, nowhere states the description of the land in question; neither Jamabandi number, nor Daag number, or Mauza or Police Station of the land in question is given/mentioned in it.

(vii) Moreover, the order dated 30.05.1940 contains nothing to show that it relates to settlement of land vide document dated 05.06.1938. In other words, there is nothing in the order dated 30.05.1940 which suggests that it relates to settlement of 05.06.1938.

(viii) The purported settlement of 05.06.1938 was done during Gantzer Survey Settlement and as such this settlement would have happened during "Khana Puri" or "Tasdik" stage and as such the settlement, if any, would have happened then certainly by filing application before the Settlement Authorities under Regulation-III of 1872, the Parcha entries would have been caused/ availed relating to the lands in question.

(ix) It is important to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the record of R.M. Case No.129/1961-62 of the Court of the S.D.O. (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) is not available in the Record Room. However, the record register shows that the same is related to different persons and parties to which the writ petitioner is not concerned. Revenue Misc. Case No.129/1961-62 is related to Hemlal Rout vs. Balo Rout and in the order dated 26.05.1965, there is no mention of any such settlement or Plot No., J.B. No. etc. That the land in question is a waste land and was found vacant at the time of acquisition for the purpose of extention of International Airport. The Section 33 of S.P.T. Act is self explanatory that in case if such waste land is not cultivated within five years from the date of it's settlement, then the settlement can be cancelled/ set aside.

(x) The record of order dated 30.05.1940 passed in settlement case No.38 of 1938-39 is between Lakhan Mahto, Bhau Raut, Rubi

Raut, Abdul Mia, Hemilal Raut with Receiver Rohani Estate. How the petitioner or his father is related with it, is not clear from the record.

11. That the instant writ application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine in view of the following reasons:-

a. Annexure-3 is the order dated 06.09.2016 passed in Case No.10/2016-17 whereby the learned Circle Officer, Deoghar, has refused to grant the petitioner the status of Jamabandi Raiyat on the ground that the purported Jamabandi in registere-II in terms of order of SDO passed in R.M. Case No.129/61-62, but no reason has been assigned as to under what authority the said entry was made in register-II.

b. This order of 06.09.2016 has not been challenged by the petitioner before any appellate authority. The order dated 06.09.2016 has also not been challenged in this writ petition and therefore, the respondent state is not accepting the petitioner as a jamabandi Raiyat of Mauza Asahana and thereby the state is also not accepting the petitioner as a right title holder, possessor and the interest in the land in question."

Thereafter the matter was taken on 17.08.2022 and the case was directed to be listed on 18.08.2022 to be taken as a first case. The case was listed on 18.08.2022 and this Court has recorded as under:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the matter may be listed on 31.08.2022, so as to file rejoinder to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Mr. Sukhdev Singh.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I assisted by A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I, Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai has submitted, that the rejoinder must be served upon him by 29.08.2022, so that he can verify the same.

This Court, after perusal of the pleadings particularly the pleadings of the State, is of the opinion that assistance shall be provided from the Bar as the instant matter touches the basic foundation of the Evidence Act and the sanctity of judicial / quasi judicial authority.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court appoints learned Senior counsel, Mr. V.P. Singh assisted by learned counsel,

Mrs. Ritu Kumar as Amicus Curiae in the present matter.

Office is directed to furnish photocopy of the entire document including annexures and the order sheets passed in this matter to learned Amicus Curiae for their assistance to this Court.

List this case on 31.08.2022 under the same heading. It is made clear that the rejoinder must be filed by the petitioner by 29.08.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that rejoinder to the Supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 29.08.2022 and copy of the same has been served upon learned counsel for the respondents / State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that it has been stated in paragraph-3 of the rejoinder, that an area of 1 Bigha 15 Kattha in Plot No.1 and 8 Kattha 12 Dhur in Plot No.23 were settled by the receiver of Rohini Estate in favour of Abdul Hakim, that is the father of the present petitioner vide Amalnama dated 05.06.1938. The said Amalnama was subsequently affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Deoghar vide his order dated 30.05.1940 in Settlement Case no. 38/1938-39 and objection of Kanungo has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that it has been further stated in the rejoinder that Abdul Hakim i.e. father of the present petitioner was also called as Abdul Miyan or Hakim Miyan, therefore, the Amalnama was issued in the name of Abdul Hakim but in settlement proceeding being Settlement Case No.38/1938-39, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer of Deoghar had in his order dated 30.05.1940 referred the said Abdul Hakim as Abdul Miyan and the rent receipt had been issued in the name of Hakim Miyan. Therefore, the aforesaid fact clearly shows that the land had been originally settled to Abdul Hakim and the said settlement was affirmed by the Sub- Divisional Officer of Deoghar.

It has been further stated by the petitioner that it is an undisputed fact, that the name of Hakim Miyan is running in Register-II with regard to the aforesaid settled land and the said Hakim Miyan was paying rent and after his death, the petitioner is paying rent as his legal heir and

successor to the State Revenue authorities without any objection / interruption.

It has been further stated that in rejoinder to the supplementary counter-affidavit that the respondent authorities are disputing the correctness of the Amalnama issued by the receiver of the Rohini Estate, although the same was affirmed by the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar as far back as the year, 1940 itself. The respondents have also continuously accepted rent from the original settlee and after his death, from the petitioner.

It has been further stated in rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit that after acting upon the said Amalnama for nearly 80 years, the respondent authorities are disputing its correctness. The respondent authorities have only tried to point out minor errors in those documents, although those cannot be attributed against the petitioner or touches the title of the petitioner over the land and thus, respondents are trying to avoid payment of compensation of the land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that this contention of the Chief Secretary itself pre-supposes, that a settlement of this land in favour of the father of the petitioner on 05.06.1938. No order of cancellation of settlement was ever made rather the settlement was for the purpose of agricultural and residential purposes, the house of the petitioner was initially erected, subsequently shifted to another place and the land remains vacant, but if the plea of the Chief Secretary is to be taken then there must be an order of cancellation of the settlement, which was never been passed, as such, settlement remains with the person to whom once a land has been settled by the Rohini Estate, it has never been challenged by Rohini Estate, the land remains with the petitioner and State cannot acquire the same because it was never a Gairmazrua aam land, which vested in the State rather it was a part of Gairmazrua Khas land, which was settled by the Rohini Estate by the receiver of the Rohini Estate in favour of the intermediaries and thus, it cannot be vested in the State without having actual and specific order of vesting, accordingly, the plea taken by respondents / State is fit

to be rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under Section 33 of the SPT Act, which reads as follows:-

"33. Settlement of waste land liable to be set aside if not cultivated within five years.- In the event of any land settled as aforesaid not being brought under cultivation within a period of five years from the date of settlement, it shall be open to the Deputy Commissioner on an application made by jamabandi raiyat, the village headman, mulraiayat or the landlord, as the case may be, to set aside the settlement and to make such resettlement as is permissible under this Act or any law or anything having the force of law in Santhal Parganas."

The Act itself shows that for cancellation, specific order is required, which has never been issued against aforesaid settlement.

Learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by learned counsels, Mrs. Ritu Kumar and Mr. Indrajit Sinha has submitted, that so far the query made by this Court in terms of order dated 14.06.2022, quoted at Para-8 of the supplementary counter- affidavit filed by respondent no.1, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, that "How such order passed by the S.D.O. has been declared as fake and myth by the Circle Officer who is admittedly subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer and if such affidavit is bad in law, the said officer must be prosecuted in accordance with law", but no reply to the query of this Hon'ble Court has been made by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand.

This Court is astonished to see the conduct of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. This Court time without number has sent the order before the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, that the respondents-State authorities are not replying to the query of this Court in their counter affidavit, which are the major reasons for pendency of the litigation before the High Court, but if the Chief Secretary himself is of the such view that the Court queries are not to be answered, then this Court has to take serious view of the matter for two reasons:-

(1) once a quasi judicial order or judicial order is passed, there is provision to challenge the same before the appellate or revisional authority. If an order has been passed in the year, 1940 and the same has attained its finality and after 82 years, no revenue / administrative authority can challenge the same on the ground of fake and myth. The declaration of fake and myth has to be recorded and shall be declared by a competent court of civil jurisdiction.

(2) This Court is also serious about the fact, that in-subordination, will perpetuate the illegality in the administrative side. As the Subordinate Executive Officers are not obeying their superior's order. This is one of the difficulties for the Court, in the State of Jharkhand. It seems that these officers have no respect for the judicial order and thus the matters are being kept pending for years together.

This Court has asked the Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to appear before this Court and in pursuance to that, he has appeared to assist this Court.

Learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Counsel has further, submitted that the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand in supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.08.2022 at Para-24 has referred that para-10 of the supplementary counter-affidavit is based upon the information derived from the record, but no document has been annexed to substantiate the same, except the Amalnama dated 05.06.1938 as Annexure-A and photocopy of order dated 30.05.1940 as Annexure-B and thus such paragraph comes under the purview of information derived from the record, but such paragraph cannot be accepted in accordance with law in absence of any record, as such, the same is fit to be rejected.

This Court has asked the Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand about the duty of the Law Secretary and how this type of mischief, which are being committed by the Executives by defying earlier judicial order can be curtailed? What are the duty of the Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand before the Government in assisting the State Government in litigation?

The Law Secretary, Mr. Nalin Kumar has submitted, that the Law Department is a Nodel Department for the learned Advocate General office and in the Advocate General office, there are several officers. It is the duty of the Advocate General and Law Officers to conduct the litigation before the Hon'ble High Court and for the different jurisdictions, as far as Law Department is concerned, there is a separate wing comprising of the law officers and whenever there is an opinion sought from the Law Department by the Government and Executive side, the opinion is given in those cases, but no opinion has been sought from the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand in the present matter. Therefore, Office of the Law Secretary has no idea about the facts and circumstances of this case.

This Court has further asked the Law Secretary, Mr. Nalin Kumar whether a judicial order passed by S.D.O., Deoghar in terms of order dated 30.05.1940 in Settlement Case No. 38/1938-39, which has attained its finality is binding upon the the State of Jharkhand or not?

Upon which, the Law Secretary has replied that any judicial order is binding until and unless that is set aside by the appellate or revisional court.

This Court appreciates the assistance provided by Mr. Nalin Kumar, Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand in assisting this court.

Learned Amicus Curaie, Mr. V. P. Singh, senior counsel assisted by learned counsels, Mrs. Ritu Kumar and Mr. Indrajit Sinha has submitted, that it appears that in the year 1938-1940, the Sub-Divisional Officer was having both the jurisdiction of criminal as well as civil side, so any declaration which has been made by the Sub-Divisional Officer is binding upon the Executive Authority unless and until that is set aside by the appellate or the revisional court.

Learned Amicus Curaie, Mr. V. P. Singh, senior counsel has further submitted, that such counter affidavit dated 08.01.2020 filed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar declaring the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar dated 30.05.1940 in Settlement Case No.38 of 1938- 39 to be fake and myth is bad in law, as the same order has attained its

finality after lapse of more than 80 years.

Learned Amicus Curaie, Mr. V. P. Singh, senior counsel has further submitted, that under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same is binding and provision of law may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document- When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.

Exception 1-When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.

Exception 2- Wills[admitted to probate in [India]] may be proved by the probate.

Explanation 1.- This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.

Explanation 2.-Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.

Explanation 3.- The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.

Thus, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by learned counsels, Mrs. Ritu Kumar and Mr. Indrajit Sinha have univocally submitted, that counter-affidavit filed by the then Circle Officer, Deoghar, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh and the supplementary counter- affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand are fit to be rejected, as these counter-affidavits are filed without considering

the legal position of a document.

After hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents / State, learned Amicus Curiae and the Law Secretary, Government, this Court has taken a serious view of the matter only because the judicial order or quasi judicial order passed on 30.05.1940 by the competent authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, who was holding both civil and criminal jurisdiction at that time, which has attained finality has been doubted and deliberately ignored by the State Officers. It is experienced by this Court that counter-affidavits are not filed after due vetting and approval from the competent authority and surprisingly in the present case, the Circle Officer in his counter affidavit dated 08.01.2020 has commented upon the superior officer i.e. Sub- Divisional Officer, Deoghar, that the order is fake and myth and no reason has been assigned that why the order is considered to be fake and myth in his opinion without comparing the same with its original from the record room.

This Court is also of the opinion, that unless and until the original document has been brought on record and compared with the purported document, the Executive authority has no right to say that the order is fake and myth. Several revenue matters are pending before this Court, where the officers are themselves becoming judge without assigning any cogent reason and evidence declaring the document to be fake and myth, which is not within their jurisdiction, though the document has been issued by their superior officers / authorities. This is high-handedness, indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience by a subordinate officer towards order passed by superior officer.

This Court has thus directed, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand in terms of order dated 14.06.2022 to look into the matter and in compliance of the said order, the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.08.2022 has been filed after huge delay, which shows about the functioning of the State Administration and

respect for the courts by the Executives. If the Court has passed an order directing the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to file counter affidavit in a fixed time and the Chief Secretary is also not complying the order, then it is serious matter, as no leave has been sought for. Thus, this Court deprecates the act of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, who in compliance of the order dated 14.06.2020 did not file the supplementary counter-affidavit on 19.07.2022, though more than one month time was granted and then again the matter was adjourned for further one month, to be fixed on 17.08.2022, but the same was again not complied. This shows the kind of respect for the judicial work, which the head of the executive and administration is carrying in his mind and thus this Court deprecates the act of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and directs all the officers to comply the order of the Court in letter and spirit within stipulated time, otherwise legal action shall be taken against the officers concerned.

So far the query, which has been made by this Court with regard to the conduct of the Circle Officer, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh is concerned, no whisper has been made by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. This shows that the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is filing counter-affidavit but has no interest in answering the query made by this Court, which is the another reason to deprecate the act of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand.

So far the reason mentioned in para-10 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.08.2022 filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is concerned, it appears that the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand also lack legal acumen by declaring a judicial order not to be genuine, which was passed on 30.05.1940 in Settlement Case No.38/1938-39, which is not less than 80 years before initiation of the present proceeding. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand has also not consulted the Law Department of the Government of Jharkhand, which comprises of Senior Judicial

Officer in the rank of Law Secretary, who is being appointed by the Standing Committee of the High Court, considering his legal acumen, integrity in every aspect of the matter.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand has not bothered to atleast seek any legal opinion from the Law Secretary before filing such affidavits before this Court, which are being dealt hereinafter. It also appears to this Court that the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand has no interest in the legal affairs of the State and rather he is only interested to discharge his duty to sustain himself in the system, which substantiate the reason that the State of Jharkhand is full of corruption.

So far the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.08.2022 filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the averments made in para-10, this Court is of the opinion that :- (1) The reply given by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand in Para-10(i) of the supplementary counter-affidavit i.e. It is not clear as to what is the actual name of the father of the petitioner, in as much as, whereas the settlement document dated 05/06/1938 disclosed the name of the petitioner's father as "Addual Hakim" the order dated 30/05/1940 (page 25 of writ petition) is addressed to someone, by name "Hakim Mia" is concerned, the objection taken by the Chief Secretary is not sustainable because of the reason that the petitioner has not passed this order. The order has been passed by a competent officer of the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1940, when normally an officer of Indian Civil Services were holding the post. Any omission in recording the name by Presiding Officer cannot be a hurdle for the litigant. The Chief Secretary, ought to have considered that in common parlance in a particular community Abdul Hakim and Hakim Mia are used simultaneously for the same person unless and until contrary of the same is brought on record. The Chief Secretary ought to have taken report from the Circle Office of the concerned area, who are responsible to maintain the genealogical table so as to take such plea.

The plea taken by an officer of the rank of Chief Secretary without any basis just for hake of it to defy the rightful claim. If the entire detail is not mentioned about the parentage of the petitioner in the order sheet, whether such order sheet will not come for the rescue of the petitioner or a fresh litigation will initiate only because the officer has not mentioned the detail of parentage of the petitioner. It appears to this Court that the Chief Secretary's argument seems to be without application of mind as because in the entire revenue record and in the rent receipt, this Court has experienced and it is prevailing in the State of Jharkhand, that the revenue authorities including the office of the Chief Secretary to Halka Karamchari, nobody is following the rules in the State of Jharkhand to fill up the entire detail. This prevalent lapse or an error prevailing on the part of the State shall never be treated against the petitioner or a person in favour of whom the rent receipt has been issued because it is not in the hand of the litigant to curb such mistake, as such, this plea of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is fit to be rejected unless and until Abdul Hakim has been shown in the genealogical table maintained in the office of the Circle Officer, that he is not the father of the petitioner. The Chief Secretary has no locus to say without any cogent evidence that Abdul Hakim is not Hakim Mian, who is father of the petitioner without any valid reason. Accordingly, the reply given in para-10(i) is hereby rejected.

(2) So far the reply given in para-10(ii) of the supplementary counter affidavit i.e. It is nowhere clarified in the entire record that "Abdul Hakim" and "Hakim Mian" are same and one person. It is the duty of the State to verify this fact as because the genealogical table are being maintained in the office of the Circle Officer. Petitioner has to say on affidavit in the writ petition, that he is the son of Abdul Hakim or Hakim Mian, then the State Authority has to controvert it on the basis of material and evidence brought on record, otherwise, it seems that State has adopted a method to defy the claim of the writ petitioner by filing such frivolous statement without

verifying any documents, which is not acceptable to this Court. Accordingly, the reply given in para-10(ii) is hereby also rejected. (3) So far the reply given in para-10(iii) i.e. Settlement deed 05.06.1938 is written in Kaittahi script and the same does not bear the signature of its scriber is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the Chief Secretary has never seen certified copy of any order, as he was never interested in judicial work. The signature of the Scriber of the order is never given in certified copy. In general practice, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court are being transmitted to several courts, but no where signatures are given. It is only the "Sd/-" used for the word signature in the certified copy, which is issued by the Copying Section of the concerned Department after comparing the same from the original document, as such, para-10(iii) of the supplementary counter- affidavit shows the conduct and approach of Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand towards the legal matters. Accordingly, the reply given in para-10(iii) is also hereby rejected. (4) So far reply given in para-10(iv) of the supplementary counter- affidavit i.e. there is no document on record to show that the petitioner's father was a Jamabandi Raiyat of mauza - Asahana and as such settlement in his favour of the lands in question is totally null and void is concerned, this statement is ipso facto not acceptable to this Court after 80 years of passing of an order by a competent authority, who was holding jurisdiction of civil and criminal side in the year 1940, when Code of Criminal Procedure has not come into existence, where the criminal jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer has been separated from civil jurisdiction. This Court has failed to understand the meaning of contents of this paragraph of supplementary counter-affidavit. If petitioners declares on oath in the writ petition, which is requirement of law, that he is son of the recorded Jamabandi raiyat and that has not been denied by the respondent authorities, then such plea cannot be available to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. If such plea is allowed to

be taken by the Chief Secretary without bringing on record any fact based on some record such statement will multiply the litigation because once a matter has been settled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar and it attains its finality for more than 80 years, such facts are binding on the system, otherwise the litigation will cropped up every morning even after disposal of the same in the previous evening, as such, this reply is fit to be rejected, as the Chief Secretary has not brought any document on record to establish from the office of the Circle Officer, which is maintaining the genealogical table of the person residing in the village that petitioner is not son of Jamabandi raiyat. These seems nothing but a controversy created by State, because State has nothing to loose. The finances which is money of the tax payer is being spent on such frivolous litigation at the whims and fancies of the executive officers, thus, such pleas are being taken without any basis.

(5) So far explanation given in para-10(v) of the supplementary counter-affidavit i.e. The said "Amalnama" dated 05.06.1938 bears the signature of one A. Prasad under the capacity of receiver of Rohani Estate. But there is no document to show that Rohani Estate had ever appointed him as a receiver in connection with land in question is concerned, it is surprising for this Court, that Rohini Estate has never doubted this document nor any document has been brought on record by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand that Rohini Estate was not in existence or the Rohini Estate was not under the super-session of the Receiver or A. Prasad was never a Receiver in the Rohini Estate at the relevant time, rather the document, which has been brought on record cannot be doubted under this background unless and until contrary document is brought on record, otherwise all the settlement made by the Rohini Estate and all the settlement made by the ex-landlords in favour of intermediaries mentioning their names in the M-Form at the time of vesting of the Estate will become a subject matter of dispute as such, oral plea by the Executive Officer without any reason, if such plea of

the Chief Secretary is accepted. This shows that the Chief Secretary completely lacks the legal acumen. If he is lacking the knowledge in the legal side, there is a department called Law Department in the State of Jharkhand. He should have taken assistance from the Law Department, otherwise litigation become unending for the High Court and subordinate courts. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this plea of the Chief Secretary is a vacuous plea contrary to the record and contrary to the established procedure of the legal system. Thus, this Court deprecates such plea taken by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand.

(6) So far reply given in para-10(vi) i.e. The order dated 30.05.1940, nowhere states the description of the land in question; neither Jamabandi number, nor Daag number, or Mauza or Police Station of the land in question is given / mentioned in it is concerned, once a document has been written by an Officer, who was competent authority having civil and criminal jurisdiction at that relevant time and the document has not been controverted by bringing any other document to establish that the said document is not a genuine one, any omission or commission in writing the order by the authority cannot nullify that document, being a judicial order because the name of the parties with parentage has not been mentioned. The description has not been mentioned, it was incumbent upon the officer concerned, that those document must be written in such fashion that it may itself clarify the entire issues but all the matters are to be considered and taken by the executive while passing order. But any omission as pointed out by the Chief Secretary will not touch the validity of document without bringing on record any contrary document. It is for department to train their officers, how to write an order. For that a judicial order cannot be thrown into dustbin only because one officer has found that entire detail has not been mentioned. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand before writing all these ought to have verified it from the original record of Settlement Case No. 38/1938-39, but without verifying from the

record, he has whispered the same and thus this Court is not accepting the plea taken by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and rejects the plea as because any omission in writting as per the wisdom of the Chief Secretary will not disturb the right of the petitioner from land. If anything is there for the Chief Secretary, then the said order ought to have preferred for appeal / revision against that order, but only on that basis, he cannot become judge of his case that this document is fake and myth. Accordingly, the reply given in para-10(vi) is also hereby rejected.

(7) So far the reply given in para-10(vii) of the supplementary counter-affidavit i.e. Moreover, the order dated 30.05.1940 contains nothing to show that it relates to settlement of land vide document dated 05.06.1938. In other words, there is nothing in the order dated 30.05.1940 which suggests that it relates to settlement of 05.06.1939 is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the proceeding of Case No. 38/1938-39 of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar was initiated by Lakhu Mahato, Bhatoo Rout, Rupi Rout, Abdul Mia and Hemlal Rout of Asahna, Taluka-Rohini, P.S. - Deoghar against Receiver Rohini Estate and the same has been disposed of on 30.05.1940. The document itself says that it was against the Rohini Estate. Receiver was there in the proceeding and thus, if anything was haunting in the mind of the Chief Secretary, he would have called for the record and verify the same from the original record, but without verifying the same, he cannot say that there is nothing on record, which says that it was with regard to settlement of land, which shows that the Chief Secretary was careless in filing the supplementary counter-affidavit as the document itself shows that it was Settlement Case No. 38/1938-39. Accordingly, because of the understanding of the Chief Secretary, a document cannot be thrown into dust bin. This document is valid and legal document having legal sanctity under law, as it is 80 years old at that time and thus, Section 91 of the Evidence Act binding upon such things, which has not been considered by the Chief Secretary, because he has no

interest in the legal affairs and he failed to take help from the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand.

(8) So far the reply given in para-10(viii) of supplementary counter-affidavit i.e. The purported settlement of 05.06.1938 was done during Gantzer Survey Settlement and as such this settlement would have happened during 'Khana Puri" or "Tasdik" stage and as such the settlement, if any, would have happened then certainly by filing application before the Settlement Authorities under Regulation-III of 1872, the Parcha entries would have been caused / availed relating to the lands in question is concerned, this plea of the Chief Secretary shows that he is not aware of Survey Settlement proceeding through Gantzer's in Santhal Pargana. Amalnama was given on 05.06.1938 by Receiver of Rohini Estate. Thus, the proceeding of Settlement Case No. 38/1938-39 was initiated before the competent court of Sub-Divisional Officer, who has jurisdiction of Civil and Criminal matter at the relevant time. This proceeding was in presence of the Receiver of the Rohini Estate. This proceeding was concluded on 30.05.1940 by that time, Gantzer Settlement was over. So, the father of the petitioner has taken utmost legal steps with regard to sanctity of the Amalnama by placing it before the competent court of law at the relevant time, which was decided on 30.05.1940 after Gantzer Settlement Operation ended in 1939 and thus, this shows that the Chief Secretary has not verified any of the fact and has controverted the same mentioning the same that these are on the basis of information, rather these are not on the basis of information rather all these objections are on the basis of the hearsay and not based on documents, as no contrary documents are brought on record by the Chief Secretary or by the Respondents / State to controvert the same. This shows that the Chief Secretary has no interest in the legal matters. Had it been so, the writ petitions pending before this Court ought to have been reviewed by him. He never reviewed the matters, nor any Deputy Commissioner has reviewed the matters and thus wrong and illegal orders are being

passed at the whims and fancies of these officers, which are been dealt by the High Court and while the matter was pending, the executive officer are also not filing counter-affidavit within the time granted by the Court and thus matters are being piled up before the High Court because of non-cooperation on the part of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and other administrative officers. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this plea of the Chief Secretary is hereby rejected.

(9) So far reply given in para-10 (ix) is concerned, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar passed in RM Case No.129/1961- 62 is not available on the record room, from which it is evident that the State has completely created mess of it. The records room are not been maintained by the officers as the head of the Administration holding the post of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand has no interest in the legal affairs and thus, this Court, time without number has reminded the Chief Secretary to evolve method for the maintenance of records in the records room, but still those have not been maintained. In one of the case of Ranchi, this Court felt necessary to call for document from record room and accordingly, order has been passed. But surprised to seeing the conduct of the officer concerned, who has no respect for the order of the court and a report was submitted, stating therein that the document is not available and is being searched out and shall be made available after being searched. Such letter means, this Court should wait till the officer will sent a document to this Court. The matter was reported to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, but no action has been taken in this regard. This shows control of the Chief Secretary over his subordinate and his interest in assisting the court in disposal of pending cases. This plea of the Chief Secretary is not in the interest of this case as well as in the litigation policy of the State. Thus this plea of the Chief Secretary shows that he has no interest towards the judicial work.

So far the plea which is taken para -10(ix) that land in

question is waste land and was found vacant at the time of acquisition for the purpose of the extension of International Airport. The Section 33 of the SPT Act is itself explanatory that in case if such waste land is not cultivated within five years from the date of its settlement then settlement can be cancelled / set aside is concerned, the Chief Secretary has not mentioned when the such settlement has been cancelled by bringing any record of disclosing the date of cancellation of settlement. The court is forced is presumed on such plea of the Chief Secretary that if the land remains uncultivated for five years, the land becomes is a government land.

This Court has surprised by such plea of the Chief Secretary and asked the State Counsel, whether the Chief Secretary has declared all the lands vacant off and on ring road to be government land, whether such letter has been issued by the State, if not then why such thing has not been done and how this Court will consider that the vacant and uncultivated land of raiyat becomes government land because of non-utilization. The concept of tanr parti has never been considered by the Chief Secretary and thus, bogus plea has been taken, which is not acceptable to this Court.

A person can be owner of the land, he can cultivate the land or he can use the land for different purposes. The person is only duty bound to pay the rent as per the use of the land, but State cannot say that they will acquire the land, if the land remains uncultivated. If this plea of the Chief Secretary is acceptable then the Chief Secretary must file a document before this Court that all the parti land situated off and on, the ring road in the District of Ranchi and different part of the State of Jharkhand have been declared to be, the Government property, but this Court is of the opinion that this proposition is bad and thus, this plea of the Chief Secretary is also rejected.

So far Section 33 of the SPT Act is concerned, settlement of

waste land is liable to be set aside if not cultivated within 5 years, but it requires a formal order of cancellation.

No such application was ever filed, this shows that the Deputy Commissioner and the revenue authority are also not interested in discharging their duties and there is complete lack of information to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, who is the head of the Executive in the State of Jharkhand, as such, this plea taken by the Chief Secretary is not in accordance with Section 33 of the S.P.T. Act. It also appears that unless and until a cancellation order is passed such plea is not available to the Chief Secretary and accordingly the same is hereby rejected.

So far the plea taken in para 10 (x) of supplementary counter affidavit is concerned, it has been stated by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand that record of order dated 30.05.1940 passed in settlement Case No.38/1938-39 is between Lakhan Mahto, Bhau Rout, Rubi Rout, Abdul Mia, Hemlal Rout with Receiver Rohini Estate, which has been wrongly mentioned by the Chief Secretary, it shows that the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is callous while filing the supplementary counter affidavit before the High Court. The document itself shows that proceeding of the Settlement Case No.38 of 1938/39 was initiated by Lakhu Mahato, Bhatoo Rout, Rupi Rout, Abdul Mia and Hemlal Rout of Ashna, Talukh-Rohini, P.S. Deoghar against the receiver of Rohani Estate, whether the name of the father of the petitioner has been mentioned in order or not that is none of the business of the litigant. It is the duty of the Presiding Officer to mention the same, if they failed to do so being State authority, then it was incumbent for the State authority to verify from original record before declaring it fake and myth. A document which has existed in the open proceeding for 70-80 years cannot be thrown in dustbin and cannot be declared to be fake on such plea.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand has recorded

the same in para-11 of the supplementary counter affidavit stating that writ petition should be dismissed in limine, which shows that he lacks legal acumen completely. It is settled proposition of law, that once a Jamabandi has been created for a long period of time, as rent is being collected, whether rightly or wrongly, Jamabandi created, cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding. The Apex Court and this Court in the catena of judgments has again and again held that the legal remedy lies with the State, that they should go for a civil suit. The State cannot become a muscle man and cannot become himself judge of own cause.

This above reasons shows that the Executive in the State of Jharkhand has no interest towards the legal work nor they are consulting the Department of Law and Justice in the State of Jharkhand, wherein three District Judges, four Civil Judge (Senior Division) and five Civil Judge (Junior Division) are posted for the legal assistance.

If the Officer of the Rank of Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1940, who are mainly from Indian Civil Services before the independence have committed such thing, that is not open for the present Secretary, unless and until a contrary document is brought on record.

The disbursement of finance by the State to the Department of law is approximately 600 crores and Rs.6 crores are being paid to the Judicial Officers and Ministerial Staffs per annum as salary and still the Chief Secretary is not availing and consulting the above departments. The Executive Officer are also not availing the benefits of the same, then why the State is spending Rs.6 crores or more upon their salary. If the State does not require any Law Officer as they will perform their part of duty by themselves, they must dispensed their service and safeguards expenses, which is very big amount, for development of the tribals in the State of Jharkhand.

Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Chief Secretary has

no interest in the judicial work. He has no respect for the judicial work. He has not complied the order passed by the court in time frame work. This court has adjourned the matter. Thus, he has created hurdle in smooth functioning of this Court. Apart from this the Chief Secretary has shown that he lacks legal acumen and he has not taken assistance from the legal department nor verified the original record of Settlement Case No. 38/1938-39 of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. The Chief Secretary failed to take legal action against the Circle Officer commenting upon the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was admittedly from Indian Civil Service (ICS) at the time of passing order on 30.05.1940, when Deoghar was itself a sub-division. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Deoghar has both powers civil and criminal as because Cr.P.C came in 1973. Thus such insubordination by a Circle Officer against a Sub Divisional Officer ought to have been dealt seriously by the superior officer. If the superior officer has failed to do so, this Court has vast power to do the same.

Accordingly this Court proposes to initiate contempt proceeding against the said Circle Officer Mr. Anil Kumar Singh that why he should not be dealt in the Contempt of Court Act for his action and showing disrespect towards judicial order dated 30.05.1940 and why this Court should not recommend the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand to enter adverse remarks in his service record that he has no interest in the judicial work.

So far the Chief Secretary is concerned, this Court has shown displeasure towards the Chief Secretary, as the Chief Secretary has not given reply with respect to the query made by this Court in terms of order dated 14.06.2022. Non-compliance of such order is another contemptuous act of the Officer.

Thus, this Court is of the opinion that because of non- compliance of order and taking such adamant approach in not following the judicial order which is 80 years old and binding under

Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Chief Secretary also requires to be dealt with the contempt proceeding.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court proposes that a notice be issued against the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Mr. Sukhdev Singh that why a contempt proceeding be not initiate against him for non-compliance of the order dated 30.05.1940 passed in Settlement Case No.38/1938-39 and this Court's order dated 14.06.2022 in letter and spirit and why this Court should not recommend the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India to enter adverse remarks in his service record that he has no interest in the judicial work.

Office is directed to issue notice upon both the officers i.e. the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Mr. Sukhdev Singh and the then Circle Officer, Deoghar, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh. The notice upon Anil Kumar Singh shall be served by Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand at his present place of posting, if not presently posted as Circle Officer, Deoghar.

Put up this case on 09.11.2022 so as to submit their show cause.

This Court appreciates learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by learned counsels, Mrs. Ritu Kumar and Mr. Indrajit Sinha for their fair assistance to this Court.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/R.S./Rohit/-